Climate change means the difference in the Earth’s global climate or in regional climates over time. Climate change has become a major concern especially in colder countries. Climate change can be warmer or colder. This consists of global warming and global cooling.
It describes changes in the state associated with atmosphere over time scales ranging from decades to an incredible number of years. These changes could be due to processes in the Earth, forces from outside (e.g. variations in sunlight intensity) or, more recently, human activities. Ice ages are prominent examples.
Climate change is any significant long-term change in the elements of an area (or even the whole Earth) over an important time period. Climate change is about abnormal variations to the climate, while the results of these variations on other areas associated with Earth. These include the melting of ice caps during the South Pole and North Pole. These changes may take tens, hundreds or maybe an incredible number of years.
In recent use, especially in environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate (see global warming).
Many people have suggested attempting to keep Earth’s temperature increase below 2 °C (36 °F). On February 7, 2018, The Washington Post reported on a report by scientists in Germany. The research said that if the planet built all of the coal plants which were currently planned, carbon dioxide levels would rise so much that the world would not be able to keep the temperature increase below this limit.
Overall Sample Response and Between-Group Differences
The outcomes of non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests indicate that we now have significant between-group differences for both dependent measures: valence (p = .001)and the composite sentence-specific score (p < .0001). For the overall sample, the Wilcoxon signed rank tests indicated an optimistic response on the sentence-specific composite score (p < .001) but not on the valence score (p = .12). The average valence scores – on a scale of 1 to -1 – spanned from .55 (Alarmed) to -.7 (Dismissive) (see Figure 2). The typical sentence-specific composite scores – on a scale of 18 to -18 – ranged from 9.27 (Alarmed) to -4.64 (Dismissive) (see Figure 3).
The Wilcoxon signed rank tests indicated only partial support for our hypothesis. Using valence due to the fact dependent measure, the null hypothesis could be rejected limited to the Alarmed (p = .04) and Concerned (p = .02) segments, but not for the Cautious (p = .50), Disengaged (p = .36) or Doubtful segments (p = .50). With the composite sentence-specific score as the dependent measure, the null hypothesis could be rejected for the Alarmed (p = .001), Concerned (p < .01) and Cautious (p = .01) segments, and marginally rejected for the Disengaged segment (p = .06), but not for the Doubtful segment (p = .61) segment.
In sum, there was clear evidence that the Alarmed and Concerned segments responded positively to the public health essay, and mixed evidence that the Cautious and Disengaged responded in a positive way. There was no evidence that the Doubtful responded positively. It is worthy of note, however, that most six segments agreed utilizing the essay’s opening frame device (O1) that “good health is a great blessing,” suggesting that human health and wellness is a widely shared value.
Table 3 summarizes the thematic content associated with statements produced by respondents once they were asked to go over their general reactions to the public health essay. Across segments, needless to say, a substantial proportion of comments centered on the presentation of evidence or even the stylistic tone associated with essay. For the Alarmed and Concerned segments, roughly a third of their statements reflected personal agreement with the essay. On the other hand, among the Dismissive, roughly a third of their statements characterized the essay as biased or alarmist. Relative to other possible reactions, substantial proportions associated with statements produced by the Concerned (18%), Cautious (19%), Disengaged (13%); and Doubtful (16%) indicated that the essay was informative and/or thought provoking.
Table 3 Distribution of Themes Expressed in a reaction to the Public Health Essay.
Full size table
Benefit versus Threat Statements
The Wilcoxon signed rank tests used to compare segments on the perceived clarity and helpfulness associated with threat statements in the first part of the essay up against the health advantages of mitigation-related policy actions in the second part of the essay showed an important main effect (p ≤ .05) for many segments except the Alarmed (p = .17). The Dismissive segment showed the largest difference between the parts of the essay (6.10), accompanied by the Doubtful (3.69), the Cautious (3.57), the Concerned (3.13), while the Disengaged (2.12). Using a weighted t-test, the estimated gain from the Threat to Benefits sections across all segments was 3.17 (p < .0001), with a 95% confidence interval of 1.85 to 4.49. In a nutshell, the health advantages related to mitigation-related policy actions were viewed as clearer and more useful than the preceding threat statements in the essay.
Also worthy of note, as Figures 4 and 5 indicate, is that all six segments reacted positively to the following statements concentrating on specific mitigation-related policy actions that lead to human health advantages:
“Taking actions to limit global warming – by making our energy sources cleaner and our cars and appliances more effective, by making our cities and towns friendlier to trains, buses, and bikers and walkers, and by improving the quality and safety of our food – will enhance the health of nearly every American.”
“Cleaner energy sources and more efficient utilization of energy will lead to healthier air for the kids and adults to breathe.”
“Improving the look of our cities and towns in ways making it more straightforward to get around on foot, by bike and on mass transit will certainly reduce the number of cars and help people be more physically active, drop some weight.”
Conversely, respondents in most segments responded less positively to the statement:
“Increasing our use of fruits & vegetables, and reducing our intake of meat – especially beef – can help people maintain a healthy and balanced weight, can help prevent heart disease and cancer, and can play an important role in limiting global warming.”
Opening versus Concluding Framing Statements
The Wilcoxon signed rank test used to compare segments on the reactions to the opening versus concluding framing statements for every segment showed an important or marginally significant main effect in the Alarmed (p = .07), Concerned (p < .01), Cautious (p = .05), Disengaged (p = .03) and Dismissive (p < .01) segments; the trend was not significant in the Doubtful (p = .14) segment. The biggest differences were seen in the Concerned segment (4.31), accompanied by the Dismissive (4.09), Disengaged (3.8), Cautious (2.54) while the Alarmed segment (2.45). Again using a weighted t-test, the estimated increase from the Opening to Concluding sections across all segments was 3.30 (p < .0001), with a 95% confidence interval of 2.14 to 4.47.
In the whole, people who read our public health-framed essay about climate change reacted positively to the information. People in the Alarmed and also the Concerned segments demonstrated consistent positive reaction to the details, while people in the Cautious, Disengaged, and Doubtful segments were less consistent. Although we failed to address it as a dependent measure per se, many of the respondents in most five segments made open-ended comments concerning the essay that demonstrated an optimistic engagement utilizing the material. For instance, nearly half (44%) associated with comments produced by the Disengaged segment indicated that the essay reflected their personal point of view, was informative or thought-provoking, or offered valuable prescriptive informative data on how to take action relative to the climate problem. Similarly, 39% associated with comments produced by respondents in the Doubtful segment reflected one of these simple three themes. Moreover, the ascending sentence-specific evaluations between the opening and concluding parts of the essay, for the sample overall as well as for all of the segments (excluding the Dismissive), claim that the worthiness associated with public health frame may not be immediate, but rather may manifest more fully after people have had time for you to think about the evidence, particularly when this evidence is presented with specific mitigation-related policy actions which are very likely to have human health benefits.
Perhaps one of the most intriguing findings in the study – albeit not definitive due to the order aftereffect of the details in the essay – may be the robustness associated with response across all six segments to information about the health advantages of taking action to deal with global warming.
Overall, we interpret these collective findings as providing partial support for our hypothesis that information about climate change framed in ways that encourage people to consider its human health context provides many Americans with a good and engaging new frame of reference and that this new interpretation may broaden the private significance and relevance associated with issue. Our methods were exploratory, however, and additional research on this question is needed. To that end, we have been further analyzing the information already collected to find out more systematically which specific ideas are most and also least resonant with members of each segment. We have been also planning an experimental test of climate education material framed in a variety of ways, including a public health frame. Additional research is needed to determine if these findings generalize across nations and other populations.
In the U.S., these findings are especially relevant given the “issue fatigue” that appears to be developing with regard to climate change among at the least certain segments associated with American public . Recent public opinion polls in the U.S. have shown a marked decline in the proportion of adults that are concerned about global warming, as well as relative to the proportion that are convinced that global warming is happening [27–29]. The public health voice may offer a significant hedge against such issue fatigue.
Suggesting a novel frame for climate change – i.e., a frame that individuals had not previously considered – is potentially useful when it will help people understand the issue more clearly by providing additional personal and societal relevance [30, 31]. Re-defining climate change in public health terms should help people make connections to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies, and infectious diseases experienced inside their communities, while shifting the visualization associated with issue away from remote Arctic regions, and distant peoples and animals. Along the way, giving climate change a public health focus shows that there is a need to both mitigate (in other words. reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and adjust to the problem (i.e. protect communities and individuals from current and future health related impacts). The frame also presents the opportunity to involve additional trusted communication partners on the problem, notably public health experts and local community leaders .
In conclusion, we think that the public health community has a significant perspective to generally share about climate change, a perspective that potentially offers climate change 5 paragraph essay the public a far more salient way to understand a problem that features proven deeply difficult for lots of people to completely comprehend. Moreover, the public health perspective offers a vision of a significantly better, healthier future – not only a vision of environmental disaster averted, also it focuses on a variety of possible policy actions that offer local along with global benefits. Many leading experts in climate change communication, such as the present authors, have suggested that a positive vision for the future and a localization associated with issue is just what has been missing from the public dialogue on climate change so far [13, 22, 32].
Not absolutely all aspects of the public health implications, however, may be engaging. Certain key recommendations, such as eating less meat, tended to elicit counter-arguments among people in many associated with segments within our research. Our research provides clues about specific public health messages that might not be helpful, and suggests the requirement in future research to appear carefully for examples or associations that trigger counter-arguments and negative reactions.
There is an urgent importance of the public health community to successfully educate the public and policy makers concerning the serious human health implications of climate change, and also to engage those publics in appropriate preventive and adaptive responses. As a place of strategy, however, our findings may claim that continuing to communicate concerning the issue of climate change just isn’t very likely to generate wider public engagement. Instead public health voices may be a good idea to focus their communication on the solutions while the many co-benefits that matter most to people.
Global Warming is a Threat to Peoples’ Health & Wellbeing
Many people buy into the sentiment that “good health is a great blessing.” While not yet well known, global warming poses a tremendously real threat to the health and wellness of Americans along with other people throughout the world. Experts during the World Health Organization say that global warming is already resulting in an increase in the rate of some diseases and is causing many deaths. If our government along with other governments throughout the world usually do not soon do something to limit global warming, an increasing number of people in the United States will likely be harmed and killed. Conversely, if our government does do something to limit global warming, our overall health and wellbeing will likely improve in a number of important ways.
Our overall health will suffer whenever we don’t take action
Global warming can harm people both directly and indirectly. Directly, global warming causes more extreme weather patterns including more frequent heat waves, more violent storms, and rising sea-levels – all of which can lead to people being harmed or killed. Indirectly, global warming harms the quality of our water, air and food, and our ecosystems, all of which can lead to increasing rates of disease and death. Whenever we usually do not act now to limit global warming, experts during the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that global warming will harm people in almost every region associated with United States. As a result of the poor air quality due to global warming, children will end up almost certainly going to develop asthma, while the asthma they have problems with could be more severe; adults that have heart and lung diseases will end up almost certainly going to be hospitalized or die from their illness. An increasing number of extreme heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts due to the changes in our climate will lead to more folks being injured or killed. New infectious diseases (such as for instance West Nile Virus) and old infectious diseases that people had previously eradicated from the United States (such as for instance malaria and Dengue Fever) are likely to become an increasing problem for all of us as our climate warms.
Our overall health will benefit whenever we do take action
According to a recent study a summary of as you like it published in the medical journal Lancet, taking actions to limit global warming – by making our energy sources cleaner and our cars and appliances more effective, by making our cities and towns friendlier to trains, buses, and bikers and walkers, and by improving the quality and safety of our food – will enhance the health of almost every American. Cleaner energy sources and more efficient utilization of energy will lead to healthier air for the kids and adults to breathe. Improving the design of our cities and towns in ways making it easier and safer to obtain around on foot, by bike and on mass transit will certainly reduce the number of cars on our roads and can help people be more physically active and drop some weight. Increasing our use of fruits & vegetables, and reducing our intake of meat – especially beef – can help people maintain a healthy and balanced weight, can help prevent heart disease and cancer, and can play an important role in limiting global warming.
Peoples’ health is dependent on the health associated with environment by which we live. Global warming offers America a chance to make choices which are healthier for all of us, as well as for our climate.